[13] This moving of the equinoctial point through a quarter of the great circle may perhaps explain the tradition to which Syncellus twice alludes, once when he states that Eusebius was aware of the Greek opinion that many ages, or rather myriads of years had passed since the creation of the world, during the mythical retrograde movement of the Zodiac, from the beginning of Aries, and its return again to the same point (Chronographia, p. 17.)
And again at p. 52, he refers to “the return of the Zodiac to its original position, according to the stories of the Greeks and Egyptians, that is to say, the revolution from one point back again to the same point, which is the first minute of the first division of the equinoctial sign of the Zodiac, which is called κριος (Aries) by them, as has been stated in the Genica of Hermes and in the Cyrannid books.”
He goes on to say that this is the ground of the chronological division of Claudius Ptolemy.
Jean Silvain Bailly, speaking of the Indian Zodiac, the beginning of which is placed by the Brahmins at the first point of Aries, suggests that a similar tradition may have prevailed amongst the Indians and other ancient nations to account for the pre-eminence so generally accorded to Aries. He says:
“Mais pourquoi ont-ils choisi cette constellation pour la première? Il est évident que c’est une affaire de préjugé et de superstition; le choix du premier point dans un cercle est arbitraire. Ils auront été décidés par quelque ancienne tradition, telle par example que celle que Muradi rapporte d’après Albumassar et deux anciens livres égyptiens, où on lisoit que le monde avoit été renouvellé après le déluge lorsque le soleil étoit au 1° du bélier, régulus étant dans le colure des solstices. D’Herbelot ne parle point de régulus; mais il dit que selon Albumassar les sept planètes étoient en conjonction au premier point du bélier lors de la création du monde. Cette tradition, sans doute fabuleuse, qui venoit des mêmes préjugés que celle de Bérose, étoit asiatique. Elle a pu suffire, ou telle autre du même genre, pour fonder la préférence que les brames, ou les anciens en général, ont donnée à la constellation du bélier, en l’établissant la première de leur zodiaque. Ils ont cru que ce point du zodiaque étoit une source de renouvellement, et ils ont dit que le zodiaque et l’année se renouvelloient au même point où le monde s’étoit régénéré.” (Bailly, Histoire de l’Astronomie Ancienne, pp. 482, 483.)
The propositions contained in this Paper are these:—
I. The Accadian year was counted as a sidereal year.
II. The Accadian calendar was first thought out and originated at a date not later than 6,000 B.C.
The first proposition is founded on the opinion, long ago expressed by many Oriental scholars, that the Accadian months corresponded in very early ages with the constellations of the Zodiac, Nisan—the month during which the sun was in conjunction with the constellation Aries—holding the first place then, as also in the latest times of Babylonian history, and, presumably, through the intervening period.
But even if the first proposition is granted, the second, it must be confessed, is only an opinion based on the unlikelihood that the old Accadian and sidereal year, otherwise so skilfully dealt with in the calendar, should have begun, in what would appear to be a haphazard manner, at no definite season of the year.